We constantly argue that the original intent is critical to interpreting the Constitution and, in that light, the Fourteenth was not intended to be used as widely as it has since adopted.
I am not aware that this amendment was intended to do more than assure the Freedmen were not to be denied their legitimate rights as citizens by state law.
If we expand its scope beyond its intent are we not on a slippery slope? It has already been used to claim that children born of illegal alien parents within the US are US citizens. That was never its intent, either.
As the constitution was designed most domestic law impacting citizens was to be under state jurisidiction. It never intended to deny states the right to write law respecting firearms or arms in general.
Do we really want to encourage expanded federal law making under the aegis of the Fourteenth amendment?
The militia is the natural defense of a free country
against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections,
and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against
sound policy for a free people to keep up large military
establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both
from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended,
and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and
unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample
upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to
keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers
a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power
of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful
in the first instance, enable the people to resist and
triumph over them.
By your logic the states could re-institute slavery.
The useful idiots on this thread do.
Just look at what the federal judiciary did with the 1st Amendment once they nationalized it. Ten Commandments pulled off local courthouse walls, mangers removed from town squares by force, communities forced to permit pornographers and strip joints, prayed silenced in the local public schools and so on.
No need to make a law.
In fact why confuse the issue.
We talking about and Enumerated RIGHT.
From the 10th.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
From the Second:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
A power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment.
Are you saying the 10th was repealed as well?
I am a citizen of The United States.
The founding Fathers knew exactly what they were writing.
They talked about armed revolutions and and armed citizen to prevent a tyrannical government gone wrong from trampling upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to
keep and bear arms has justly been considered.
I do not need another law to teach me history.
What is your definition of:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."